McGinnis: Mining for Cole: What happened to lead character of ‘InFamous’?

What video games can do better than any other media is provide a sense of what it is like to be something none of us will ever experience. We can dream about what it would feel like to be Michael Jordan the night he made his most famous shot. Thanks to video games, I got a taste of what that moment was like. You and I will never command a battalion of troops in World War II, or drive in the Indy 500 or traverse the magical plains of Middle Earth. But if the creators of modern games do their jobs right, we can get a small inkling of it.

.

Some of my favorite games are focused on the idea of stepping into the shoes of a superhero. Case in point, the “InFamous” series, created by celebrated developers Sucker Punch, which debuted in 2009. The titles presented a flowering of ideas embodied by earlier games like “Spider-Man 2″: What if you merged the open-world exploration of a “Grand Theft Auto” title with a depiction of a superpowered individual and gave the player free reign to roam the city, using their abilities however they wish?

The result was intoxicating. Charged with incredibly fun electricity-based powers, the player took control of Cole MacGrath, an ordinary bike messenger who becomes transformed into the most powerful entity in a city quarantined from the rest of society. The first game teased players with the idea of choice, giving you the option of whether you wanted to be a hero or villain, though the basic story was much the same.

A sequel followed in 2011, transplanting Cole to a new city and giving him an even bigger threat to face. The final result of the narrative was more dependent on the player’s choice, though, with wildly different endings depending on Cole’s actions. In the ending chosen by most gamers — not surprisingly, the heroic path — Cole sacrifices himself (and most every superpowered individual in the world) to save the lives of countless millions.

In the years that followed, the question of whether there would be another sequel to “InFamous” was left tantalizingly open, until Sony’s press conference last year where its next console — the PlayStation 4 — was officially announced. The first trailer shown by Sony on that day depicted a world where superpowered individuals were heavily outnumbered by a humanity terrified of them, and those with special abilities were hunted by the government. Before one could say, “Hey, that looks like an ‘InFamous’ game…”, the title confirmed it: “InFamous: Second Son.”

This was a joyous revelation to those of us who looked forward to once more taking to the skies with the freedom the first two games had given us. Less emphasis was given to a slightly disappointing factor, though: Cole MacGrath, the hero of all previous “InFamous” titles, was staying dead.

Ever since the end of “InFamous 2″‘s heroic storyline, with a lightning bolt forming a question mark over his body, the idea that Cole was truly gone for good hadn’t really entered into my mind — and, I suspect, the minds of most players out there. This was a series based upon comic books, after all, a medium where “dead” has never truly meant “dead.” We presumed that if a new “InFamous” game was created, the developers would find a way to bring back the character.

But as information about the new title began to emerge, representatives of Sucker Punch began saying things like how they wanted to “respect the choice” of gamers who decided to let Cole have a heroic death. This is an interesting if near-sighted perspective — I doubt most gamers who chose the hero’s path knew that they were somehow casting a vote for the character to be gone and never return.

More likely, the choice to bring in a new protagonist was focused more on broadening the franchise’s appeal. Sucker Punch had already tried this with the transition between the first and second games. Cole was completely revamped for the sequel, with a brand new voice actor, outfit, and even a much younger-looking character model — before early response caused them to tweak the look so it was closer to the original Cole. It seemed like Sucker Punch was more interested in aiming for a younger demographic than really carrying on the story many players had invested in. (No surprise “Second Son’s” new hero, Delsin, looks even younger than the revamped Cole.)

The retooling has seemingly worked: Since its release a few weeks ago, “Second Son” has sold faster than any “InFamous” title to date. Its success seems to ensure the franchise will continue, which pleases me greatly. I just hope that next time, Sucker Punch considers the idea of bringing their original hero back to join in the action. Players didn’t just become invested in the powers they were able to take control of — they grew attached to the character who wielded them, as well. And no offense to Delsin — a compelling character in his own right — but some of us miss throwing those lightning bolts, and would love to glide along those rails in Cole’s shoes one more time.

Voice actress Tara Platt loves creating new worlds

Having a conversation with actress Tara Platt is fascinating and fun, though it can be hard to keep up with her.

Platt’s mind and ideas move at highway speeds, and she’s constantly adding new thoughts to the ones she just expressed. She doesn’t want to leave anything unsaid — appropriate for such a successful voice actor.

A former Michigan resident, Platt is a highly regarded vocal talent in Hollywood, with dozens of video games and animation projects to her credit — in addition to her work as a film and television actress, author, producer, writer, Feng Shui consultant and beyond.

“When I was a little kid, I was pretty sure and determined that I was gonna be a neurosurgeon. I love that I got that in my head,” Platt said with a laugh in an interview with Toledo Free Press Star. She was, around 3 at the time. Then the young Platt was taken to see plays by her mother, and at a performance of “Annie Get Your Gun,” she was hooked.

Tara Platt

“The chorus was a bunch of little kids playing the Indians, the singing Indians. And I remember as a little kid going, ‘That is the most amazing thing ever! I want to be one of those Indians, and have so much fun and sing and dance and play!’”

“Play” is the operative word. As a kid, Platt had to move around a lot with her family. (She eventually moved to Chelsea, Mich. when she was 14, where her parents still live.) As a result of the constant uprooting, Platt found she had few friends to play with. So she’d invent her own worlds to have fun in.

“I constantly was craving play. I wanted play. I’m an only child, I didn’t have any siblings to play with, I was always the new kid, nobody liked me. I thought, ‘Well, this sucks! I want somebody to play with.’ And so, for me, it was always about creating and forming that sense of play.”

That sense can be found laced throughout Platt’s work. She honed her craft through years of training at Rutgers University and the London Academy of Theater, as well as living in New York and working off-Broadway. Eventually, her passions drove her — almost literally — to California.

“An agent from Los Angeles saw me in a play that I was in, and really liked me and liked my work. So, they started courting me. And so, over the course of a year, we sort of decided that that following pilot season — which traditionally started January-ish — they wanted me to come out to Los Angeles and start auditioning for pilots.”

She didn’t make the trek alone, though — she had started dating fellow actor Yuri Lowenthal in New York. “And he didn’t want me to come cross-country by myself — very sweet of him. And so he ended up driving cross-country with me, and when we got to Vegas, we eloped.”

The two are still married now, 10 years later, with years of success as vocal performers behind them — a career path that began in their early LA days as they looked for work.

“We found quickly that our training in acting was really able to carry us in voice-over, because that’s really the heart of what voice acting is, it’s about the acting, because you take away all the visual elements,” Platt said. “You take away all those visual elements and if you can create something with your voice, and it’s viable, it’ll work.”

“Naruto,” “Halo,” “Final Fantasy,” “Infamous,” “Rave Master,” “Persona” and many, many more franchises have featured Platt’s voice work. She and Lowenthal have even collaborated on a book about their experiences — “Voice-Over Voice Actor: What It’s Like Behind the Mic,” which they also published themselves.

That kind of do-it-yourself attitude is prevalent in the pair’s work, especially for their own production company, Monkey Kingdom Productions, founded in 2004.

“Monkey Kingdom Productions basically came out of both Yuri and I’s need and drive to be creating our own content. And whether we had a specific company to be doing it or not, we would be creating content, because we’re passionate about telling stories. And there’s things we wanna do that either we’re not working on because they’re not casting us, or it’s just a story in our head that has to get out.”

The company produced its first film shortly after forming, and work is progressing on its second, a mockumentary called “Con Artists.” They also make a Web series called “Shelf Life,” now in its third season, starring Platt and Lowenthal as superhero action figures. And through all their work, one can sense that feeling of playfulness a young woman first felt growing up.

“If you try and bring your passion and where you’re coming from in the world into everything you do, you not only will be a happier person — because you’re surrounding yourself with the things that are making you happy — but, hopefully, people will know if they want to respond to that,” Platt said.

McGinnis: Sequel SNAFUs

I’ve been playing the video game “Infamous” recently, for what must be the third time. It’s one of my favorites, a game that captures the grandeur and majesty of being a superhero, while still grounding its character in reality and tragedy. It was one of the best games of its year, which is really saying something — with “Infamous,” “Batman: Arkham Asylum” and “Uncharted 2,” among others, 2009 was one of the best years ever for gaming.

But I’m playing it this time specifically to prepare myself for the arrival of “Infamous 2″ on June 7. I, like many fans, have high expectations for this sequel — expectations which, if the early reviews are any indication, are going to be met. This is not uncommon in the world of video games, as players are usually disappointed when a sequel is not markedly superior to an original.

As a film fan as well, however, this brings to mind an obvious question: Why don’t movie audiences expect the same from sequels to popular films? Why are we still willing to give filmmakers the benefit of the doubt after being burned so many times by follow-ups that are little more than transparent attempts to cash in on the success of a previous property?

Now, this is not to say that all sequels are worthless, of course. There are plenty of examples of films that successfully continued and enhanced the story that came before: “The Godfather, Part II,” “Terminator 2,” “The Dark Knight,” “The Empire Strikes Back” and so forth. But these shining examples stand out specifically because they are the exceptions to a rule. Most of the time, your average film sequel is a significantly weaker experience than the film it was inspired by.

The difference between films and games is rather astonishing. When a video game sequel is announced, its makers go out of their way to acknowledge to the public the way a previous game was received, what could have been better and how they’re addressing those criticisms with the new game. No artist should work in a vacuum, and the makers of a gaming universe are rather refreshingly honest with their intentions to correct the flaws encountered the first time. In turn, gamers expect — demand — every aspect of a product be improved upon, from graphics to gameplay refinements and even story execution.

Considering how engrained into our culture the cinema is, moviegoers should expect no less of an attempt to add a new chapter to a successful franchise. But the result is usually disappointment. This summer’s slate has already seen a number of sequels — a fourth “Pirates of the Caribbean” and follow-ups to “The Hangover” and “Kung-Fu Panda.” None of these films have been hailed as a marked improvement over their originals, though “Panda” was certainly better reviewed than the other two. And there are many, many more part 2′s and beyond coming before fall arrives. (“Final Destination 5,” anyone?)

But no matter how many substandard follow-ups may come, film audiences still support the practice. The sequels make money. It’s an easy cash grab for a company, and a far safer bet than risking money on something new, unique and — dare I say it — creative. But those who just throw a follow-up out there and don’t give it the same care and quality the original received are also being incredibly short-sighted. A bad movie — sequel or not — will make you money for a weekend, fade quickly and you’ll never see another penny. A good movie — sequel or not — people will watch again and again, buy new copies of, and support for years. Do you want money now, or do you want it coming in steadily for a long time?

Of course, we also have to take the reigns as moviegoers. We need to recognize how rare of a breed a quality sequel is, and tailor our consumer habits accordingly. All this means is, we have to treat sequels the same as we treat any other film — don’t just blindly charge into a theater opening weekend just because it has a name we recognize. That simplistic sort of “brand loyalty” pushes film away from the art we want it to be, and into the commerce its financiers want it to be.

Instead, let’s take our time. Read up and learn about the project. Decide if we think the makers have learned from any mistakes they made and are working to correct them. Let’s talk to friends and even — gasp! — read reviews. Let’s work at being informed and discerning consumers.

Gamers expect sequels to surpass their originals. It’s time for fans to hold the creators of movies to the same standard.